Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJones, Peter
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, Chris
dc.contributor.authorWills, Andy
dc.contributor.authorSpicer, Stuart Gordon
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Health & Human Sciencesen_US

Spicer et al. (2020) reported a series of causal learning experiments in which participants appeared to learn most readily about cues when they were not certain of their causal status, and proposed that their results were a consequence of participants’ use of “theory protection”. In the present issue Chan et al. present an alternative view, using a modification of Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) influential model of learning. Although the explanation offered by Chan et al. appears very different to that suggested by Spicer et al., there are conceptual commonalities. Here we briefly discuss the similarities and differences of the two approaches, and agree with Chan et al.’s proposal that the best way to advance the debate will be to test situations in which the two theories make differing predictions.

dc.publisherUniversity of Plymouthen
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States*
dc.subjectassociative learningen_US
dc.subjecttheory protectionen_US
dc.subjectlearning modelsen_US
dc.subjectcausal learningen_US
dc.titleSimilarities and differences: Comment on Chan et al.en_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States

All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
@mire NV